Thew correlation between Jesus chastising those profiteering on religion and
someone getting off on tangents (assuming you are right which could very
well be an example of ass u me) is slight at best. It seems that if two
people are enjoying a conversation about something which may or may not have
value, then the proper response for anyone who finds it silly or boring is
to ask that the topic heading be appropriate and then delete those messages.
Chastising someone for 'weird' ideas seems inappropriate.

On Sat, 31 May 2003 19:19:49 +0100 "Iain Strachan"
<iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com> writes:
> Debbie writes a lot of sense here; it is the closing out of love
> that
> concerns me, particularly in the bitterness and sarcasm with which
> Vernon's
> observations are received.
>
> I for one don't insist you have to believe all that or agree on all
> the
> details to be a Christian. But when Michael writes something like:
>
>
> > I get fed up with the superspirituality and offensiveness of
> people like
> you
> > who assume that those who dont support your silly myths of
> numerology and
> > YEC have rejected the Bible.
> >
>
> .. then I seriously wonder how in the world you can call someone
> "offensive"
> and then reply by being equally offensive yourself. Michael has
> frequently
> on the list stated that he does not understand the maths behind
> Vernon's
> theories. Therefore surely that position of ignorance does not
> qualify him
> to state that the "numerology" is a "silly myth", and even if he
> was
> qualified to suggest it was all wrong, then a reasoned argument is
> far more
> persuasive than using perjorative language like that.
>
>
>
>
> > I have tried to answer your questions but you simply have a
> closed mind
> and
> > heart
> >
>
> .. and the same is true for you, I'm afraid; I've repeatedly tried
> to reason
> with you that this is something that it's reasonable to look into;
> that it's
> part of my own personal journey etc. I have never suggested that
> you should
> go along with it or that it or anything else was necessary for your
> salvation. Not the slightest acknowledgement have I received from
> you on
> this, nor any convincing argument why I should not pursue this, or
> indeed
> seek to discuss it with a group of intelligent scientifically
> oriented
> fellow Christians. But everytime the subject comes up, when there
> are
> individuals on the group who have responded in an intelligent manner
> that
> aids discussion, we don't get very far before you come out with one
> of your
> nasty sarcastic statements, like the triangular olive leaves. I've
> tried
> very hard not to close out the love aspect here, but it's all I can
> do at
> the moment to close out the rising anger.
>
> Iain
>
>
Iain,
How many sermons have you heard preached on Matthew 23? Is this because
Jesus was wrong, or because we are too "nice"? I contend that we have
changed _agape_ from a rational giving (see TDNT) to a sloppy
sentimentality. The Golden Rule expresses its biblical essence as clearly
as "Love your neighbor ..." Part of an honest concern is calling a shovel
a shovel. This is not necessarily "nice" in an age that insists that
every idea is equally deserving of a hearing and that no one is to be
embarassed.

Michael has, among other activities, checked the quotations presented in
support of YEC ideas and found them gross misrepresentations of the
research. He has solid grounds to call them lies. When the falsehoods
have been repeated after the perpetrators have been notified of their
error, he has grounds for denunciation as solid as those our Lord had in
the sermon recorded in Matthew 23.

As to the numerology, how does it clarify the message of scripture? How
does counting letters make anyone a better follower of Christ? a better
person whatever the standards? It seems rather to encourage pride like
that of Gnostics and Kabbalists. For a specific instance, how does
extracting an inexact value for pi from numerological data do more than
the "inspired" value of 3 given in II Chronicles 4:2? Is either
representative of an omniscient deity, who must know the transcendental
nature of pi? I have to concur with Michael's judgment. As I see it, you
are being suckered into wasting your time with numerological drivel.

So, does Michael have grounds for being testy? Definitely. Could he be
sweeter? Of course. Could Jesus have gentled his denunciation of the
scribes and Pharisees, and not whipped the dealers and money-changers out
of the Temple? Surely. Should Christ and Michael have approached matters
differently? Hm-mm.
Dave